The Supreme Court (SC) has held a Bar passer in indirect contempt for falsely claiming that artificial intelligence would be used to check and sort answers in the 2023 Bar Examinations, finding that his posts disrupted Bar operations and undermined the integrity of the examinations.
In an en banc decision promulgated on July 15, the Court found Edgar S. Dizon guilty of indirect contempt, fined him P30,000, ordered his delisting from the list of Bar passers, and warned him against further engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
“Clearly, Dizon unlawfully interfered in the conduct of the 2023 Bar Examinations, a court-sanctioned activity, by peddling false information and causing alarm and panic among the examinees,” the Court said.
The case stemmed from Facebook posts traced to the accounts “Bar Law for Dummies” and “Tsidkenu Dizon” on September 21, 2023, claiming that AI would be used to sort, check and correct Bar examination answers.
The posts went viral while examinees were preparing for the examinations, prompting the Office of the 2023 Bar Chair to issue an advisory denying the claims and clarifying that four examiners for each subject would check the answers.
An investigation identified Dizon as the administrator of both accounts, prompting the Court to order him to explain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt for disrupting and interfering with the Bar Examinations.
Dizon admitted owning the accounts but denied saying AI would sort, check or correct the examinations, an argument the Court rejected based on his post stating, “Yan ang unang hahanapin ng AI Checking to sort out the correct answers.”
The Court found that the posts forced Bar officials to divert time and personnel to trace their origin, coordinate with government agencies, issue an advisory and respond to inquiries, while examinees spent time awaiting clarification instead of focusing on their review.
The Court found Dizon liable for indirect contempt for interfering with the Bar examinations, impeding the administration of justice and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
Despite passing the 2016 Bar Examinations, Dizon had not taken his oath due to pending murder cases and was therefore not authorized to practice law.
The Court rejected Dizon’s argument that his Bar Law for Dummies Training Program merely coached examinees on answering techniques, finding that discussing past Bar examination answers and preparing review materials required the application of legal knowledge.
The Court clarified, however, that its contempt power does not shield the judiciary from legitimate criticism, stressing that fair criticism based on facts and court decisions does not constitute contempt regardless of its severity.
In ordering Dizon’s delisting, the Court stressed that the practice of law is a privilege and that it may remove a Bar passer when warranted, finding that his spreading of false information that compromised the integrity of the 2023 Bar Examinations justified the sanction.
Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.
